Come on, pE. What good is a message board without grauitous name-calling and bickering?

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:

quote:

Originally posted by toosadtobegoth:

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
I don't think toosad is being belligerent here, and I think that's kind of obvious. I think he's intense, very intense, about who he is, and I have a lot of respect for that.

FUCK YOU.

It's nice to see constructive discussion lives and breathes in this thread. Wow.

IT WAS A JOKE! IRONY IS IMPORTANT FOR STRONG HEALTHY BONES.

My apologies. I guess red is the new color for irony?

Hemoglobin = Iron(y) = Rust = Red = BS = =

Or you can rearrange all those too.

mark that's officially the greatest post I've ever seen on this board.

I agree that Mark is a genius.

And I reiterate my sincere apology to toosad. I was reading you as being serious (and, therefore, an asshole) when you were being ironic. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your character.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
And I reiterate my sincere apology to toosad. I was reading you as being serious (and, therefore, an asshole) when you were being ironic. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your character.

Even in your hasty judgement, I don't think you were 100% wrong.

The G word is pretty strong. The jury's still out on that one...

I see you, Mark!

I was just thinking about the three-person, interesting song discussion. The Beatles wrote "If I Fell" 40 years ago, and sure, it can be interpreted as a guy dumping one woman for another, but what if it's about the guy fallin' for another guy? Play it/read it a few times and "tell me what you see" or hear.

One other random thought: if "Hand in Glove" wasn't Morrissey coming out (especially with the naked guy on my 7" single cover), I don't know what.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I was just thinking about the three-person, interesting song discussion.

I don't think Gothy was talking about necessarily writing about three people, but writing in the third person form. In that case, you pretty much have to use pronouns unless you always refer to people by their proper names (e.g. Tommy and Gina in Bon Jovi's "Livin' on a Prayer" ).

However, if you stick to the first or second person form, pronouns don't really come into play.

In order for Gothy to prove his point that gay artists writing a song in this form are copping out by avoiding pronouns, he'd have to prove that using the third person POV is somehow superior to writing in first or second person. I'd argue that while it's probably more specific, it's less personal and tougher for your audience to make a personal connection with the song.

I now await the wrath of the Gothmeister.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
In order for Gothy to prove his point that gay artists writing a song in this form are copping out by avoiding pronouns, he'd have to prove that using the third person POV is somehow superior to writing in first or second person. I'd argue that while it's probably more specific, it's less personal and tougher for your audience to make a personal connection with the song.

I don't think you've necessarily got to prove that writing in the 3rd person is superior to assert that gay artists are "selling out" by avoiding pronouns. If 50% of straight artists use 3rd person and 5% of gay artists use the third person, it's pretty obvious that the gay artists are avoiding mentioning their sexuality. Where I disagree with Gothy is that doing this is really reprehensible or a copout.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I was just thinking about the three-person, interesting song discussion. The Beatles wrote "If I Fell" 40 years ago, and sure, it can be interpreted as a guy dumping one woman for another, but what if it's about the guy fallin' for another guy? Play it/read it a few times and "tell me what you see" or hear.

One other random thought: if "Hand in Glove" wasn't Morrissey coming out (especially with the naked guy on my 7" single cover), I don't know what.

Hey, did anybody actually check out those two songs, and what do you think?

The Beatles one is a stretch. But if its on your mind...

As for the Smiths' one, only vaguely. It seems to me its more about a working class, poor couple trying to live together.

OK, I'll copy the lyrics to make it easier for opinions, especially considering the argument that straight bands don't use pronouns.

"If I Fell" by Lennon/McCartney

If I fell in love with you
Would you promise to be true
And help me understand
'cause I've been in love before
And I found that love was more
Than just holding hands

If I give my heart to you
I must be sure
From the very start
That you would love me more than her

If I trust in you oh please
Don't run and hide
If I love you too oh please
Don't hurt my pride like her
'cause I couldn't stand the pain
And I would be sad if our new love was in vain

So I hope you see that I
Would love to love you
And that she will cry
When she learns we are two
cause i couldnt stand the pain
and i would be sad if our new love was in vain

so i hope you see that i
would love to love you
and that she will cry when she learns we are two.

If I fell in love with you

-----------------------------------

"Hand in Glove" by Morrissey/Marr

Hand in glove
The sun shines out of our behinds
No, it's not like any other love
This one is different - because it's us

Hand in glove
We can go wherever we please
And everything depends upon
How near you stand to me

And if the people stare
Then the people stare
Oh, I really don't know and I really don't care

Kiss My Shades

Hand in glove
The Good People laugh
Yes, we may be hidden by rags
But we've something they'll never have

Hand in glove
The sun shines out of our behinds
Yes, we may be hidden by rags
But we've something they'll never have

And if the people stare
Then the people stare
Oh, I really don't know and I really don't care

Kiss My Shades ... oh ...

So, hand in glove I stake my claim
I'll fight to the last breath

If they dare touch a hair on your head
I'll fight to the last breath

For the Good Life is out there somewhere
So stay on my arm, you little charmer

But I know my luck too well
Yes, I know my luck too well
And I'll probably never see you again
I'll probably never see you again
I'll probably never see you again
Oh ...

-------------------------------------------

On my mind...??? This is a hot thread. I heard those songs a long time ago, and they stuck out at the time, even at a young age, but hey, Yay, everything's subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
In order for Gothy to prove his point that gay artists writing a song in this form are copping out by avoiding pronouns, he'd have to prove that using the third person POV is somehow superior to writing in first or second person. I'd argue that while it's probably more specific, it's less personal and tougher for your audience to make a personal connection with the song.

I don't think you've necessarily got to prove that writing in the 3rd person is superior to assert that gay artists are "selling out" by avoiding pronouns. If 50% of straight artists use 3rd person and 5% of gay artists use the third person, it's pretty obvious that the gay artists are avoiding mentioning their sexuality. Where I disagree with Gothy is that doing this is really reprehensible or a copout.

I'm not saying it's reprehensive. I'm not saying it's bad. Fucking whatever. People do whatever they do.

I'm just saying that it's stupid as fuck to call it this simple artistic choice, like "Oh, well, they just chose to make their songs more accessible, and that's their right as an artist."

It's just fucked because it basically downplays the whole issue, like they just happened to make a simple choice, and that given the state of society, they could do that as artists, purely for accessibility factors.

WRONG!

I'm just saying it fucking affects everything you do, and it is a big choice. In the classical sense of "artistically compromising oneself" -- for instance, such as a director editing a film to go from an X rating to an R rating -- it is an artistic compromise.

I don't necessarily believe in all these distinctions of things having meaning, or that anything is better or worse than something else. But I am saying that in the context of a discussion about gay artists and "artistic choices," it's absolutely fucking ridiculous to say "Oh, well, they are artists and they can do that and aren't they great for being gay artists." It's adulation based on this notion of creativity being some magical thing, where the artist controls something and makes it meaningful. For instance, no one hears an Ashley Simpson album and thinks "Damn, that was really artful." In that context, of these gay people being artists, it is a fucking compromise, it does totally go against the idea of the classical notion of an artist, and the idea of an artist who has a vision. An artistic choice has the commonfolk definition of making a choice that stays true to the vision of the art.

Gay artists are like Gallileo renoucing his views of the earth revolving around the Sun. Execept the whole reason people adulate scientists is because they discover things, not because they stay true to a vision.

I think structually, if you look at an Ashlee Simpson song and a Nirvana song mathmatically, there wouldn't be much difference. Artisty isn't this notion of creation, it's a notion of uncompromising people who are ALSO relivant, because people deem them to be so. If a homeless person has the creative ideae of smearing shit all over his face, that's not considered art, even if he has some uncompromised vision.

Whatever way you want to define art, in the context of this discussion, people were being total fucking idiots because they make all these pretentions about gay "artists" having a creative choice to alter their "vision," and that it wasn't compromising, and that's just bullshit. They were compromising their art to be more relevant and to be deemed to have more "artistry." It's like Vincent Van Gogh deciding to use paint instead of shit, when he really wanted to use shit. It's not an "artistic choice " using the common definition of the word, if he's purposely doing it to gain exposure. Maybe using paint or using gender neautral pronouns makes society deem these artists to have more "artistry" (because Morrisey is more artiful than some homeless dude smearing shit on his face or some unknown fag playing much better songs than Morrisey but who doesn't appeal to audiences and no one ever heard -- consider this in the context in which Morrisey first started out). But don't say it's not a compromise or a trade-off. And don't say it's an artistic choice.

Does this make them reprehensible? No. But don't say it was an "artistic choice" just because it made society consider them to have more "artistry." It's just this ridiculous illogical conclusion, that's it's this normal choice an artist makes in creating a piece of work.

In short, even if marketing affects what society deems art, marketing isn't a fucking artistic choice (based on the way people were using the terms in this thread and based on how most people use those terms).

I could have just said this sentence earlier in my reply, but none of you would have "gotten it." Now I know what it would feel like to be a teacher explaining things to "developentally challenged" students.

P.S. When I said "FUCK YOU," I wasn't actually being ironic. I bet the person who apologized to me was from New York. All these fucking hipster "individual" trucker-hat mother fucks are so obsessed with being ironic, but nothing is ironic unless you put a big neon sign around it, and then when you do, it's automatically ironic. it's like rain on your wedding day mother fucker. god damn i need a tab soda.

P.P.S. A professor I had once told me that post-modern people put quotes around everything to avoid the actual issue, and that we couldn't use them. I think I asked, "What you mean by [motioning the quote sign with my hands] 'actual issues,' at which point she got annoyed. I think I did it by mistake. I'm just kidding. I never went to school. I'm being ironic again.

quote:

Originally posted by toosadtobegoth:
I bet the person who apologized to me was from New York.

You'd lose that bet.

Minneapolis/Atlanta/St. Louis/Atlanta.

I personally wasn't thinking irony so much as straightup smartassishness. Is that a word? Should be...

Do they still make Tab?

I would have responded to your teacher not by asking what the "actual issues" were but who the hell the "post-modern people" were.

Re: Hand In Glove

I wanted to reply about the sexual context of "Hand in Glove" sooner, but I was currently making my way through a book called "Saint Morrissey: A Portait of This Charming Man By and Alarming Fan" by Mark Simpson that discusses the literary antecedents and social/sexual context of songs written by Morrissey and The Smiths. I recently finished the chapter about "Hand in Glove," and the author brought up some good points about what the song is about.

Before I read the book, I had always (secretly wished) the song was about The Love That Shall Never Speak It's Name, partly because Hand in Glove is one of my favorite guitar-rock songs ever and I desperately wanted Morrissey to be gay.

But the thing is, Morrissey is not and never will be gay; he'll always be, simply, Morrissey. His sexual orientation will always be ambiguous. In fact, he doesn't have a sexual orientation (the book argues). He's like a "Fourth Sex," as the book describes - neither gay nor straight, not even bisexual or pansexual. And certainly not assexual either.

The book's analysis of Hand in Glove points to Morrissey's obsession with rebelious, working-class Northern Englishmen, and also to his obsession with James Dean - the independent, cocky, unnattainably attractive cult figure whom Morrissey is obsessed with and has even written a book about (pre-Smiths career).

If the book's analysis is to be believed, then Hand in Glove is about The Smiths.

The book explains that The Smiths are to Morrissey what the four main character in Rebel Without a Cause (James Dean's post-humously released classic movie) were - a family of rebels with an outsider status.

The 'rags' "Hand in Glove" refers to are the rags of being an outsider - an outcast in society, kicked to the curb. "It's not like any other love" refers to the band's love-hate relationship with pop music and with themselves - they are outsiders but want to rule the world (a.k.a. the pop charts). Side Note: This part of the author's argument seems weak to me, but I suppose if you fanwanked enough.... it sorta half-way makes sense. Sorta.

The author also argues this song is about Morrissey's obsession with Johnny Marr. Marr was to Morrissey his James Dean: a rebelious, beautiful ruffian.

As for the cover of the single being a nude, atractive man passively leaning against a wall, Morrissey set about changing gender and sex stereotypes from the get-go. He is a feminist, and he wanted to make the masculine male Enlishman a passive, objectivable figure the way women had been throughout time in England. (Plus, hello hotness. That's probably my favorite album cover ever. 'Cause of the pretty.)

Ultimately, whether or not you agree with this author's analysis of "Hand in Glove", the song's sexual proclivity remains completely ambiguous, just like Morrissey himself, and if the author's analysis is to be believed, the song isn't even about sex at all (sort of).

Thoughts?

Oh, and here's a link to the book.

"What does "the sun shines out of our behinds" have to do with Rebel Without a Cause? Even if it did, I mean, Sal Mineo's character in that flick is obviously in love with James Dean's character. By the way, who's supposed to be the fourth character in Rebel Without a Cause? Jim, Judy, Plato, and...?

"Hand in Glove", back at the time, seemed like a blatant gay reference, especially combined with the cover and the lyrics about "if the people stare, the people stare." What, they're staring at raggedly-clothed outsiders? They've never seen poor people before?

But I guess, everything changes to keep somebody making money, at least nowadays. Plus, we have to keep Morrissey sexually-ambiguous.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

I always thought the line about the sun shining out of our behinds was some sort of reference to the Magazine song "The Lights Pours Out of Me." I'm sure the Mozzer knew the song: he was a Buzzcocks fan, and Howard Devoto (of the Buzzcocks) formed Magazine.

I'm not sure why I thought that, and I have no evidence for it, but I always took it as a very smug rejoinder to the Magazine track.

quote:

Originally posted by droganzundt:
Re: Hand In Glove
He's like a "Fourth Sex," as the book describes - neither gay nor straight, not even bisexual or pansexual. And certainly not assexual either.

Thoughts?

hahahahhahaahhahahah

It makes perfect sense, as long as you don't think about it.

This is exactly the sort of IDIOCY I was bringing up earlier. Rather than just acknowledging that Morrisey is compromising himself, or at least staying hidden, someone makes up this elaborate, ridiculous story of how he's a fourth sex.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN, FOURTH SEX?

Is he sexually attracted to fish?